THE CASE
After the import ban decision, the Constitutional Court covered new ground, concerning genetics and statistics.  Because of this, we had to rewrite our lawsuit concerning these two topics, but the main focus of our lawsuit has always been to remove the Bull Terrier from the federal breed list.

Quick Overview of our Evidence:

1. We have 13 official studies concerning temperament, socialization, dog-to-dog behavior, field trial study, biting mechanism, etc.  These were all done by veterinarians, behaviorists, ethologins through veterinarian universities.

2. Experts:

Prof. Dr. H. Hackbarth, Director of the University of Hannover School of Animal Welfare and Behavior (representing 5 of the above studies.)

If needed, we also have, on standby:
Dr. Malcolm B. Willis, geneticist, (England)
Dr. David Harris  (USA)

3. Dr. Christian Tünnesen-Harmes is presenting our case. He is well-known in legal circles in Germany as one of the top Federal law experts with a success rate of 100%. 


BACK
The German Government's Evidence:

There is none.......in many court trials various government witnesses stated their knowledge concerning the aggression in some breeds of dogs came primarily from books.  They have not presented to any court, solid proof concerning aggression connected to certain breeds of dogs.

But after the Constitutional Court decision, March 17, 2004, the high court said it is just enough to suspect a dog or breed is dangerous',without proof.

During this court trial, they also relied heavily on statistics of dog bites from the years 1991-1995.  In these official government statistics, most Staffies and Am Staffs were lumped together, and anything resembling a bull-breed dog was labeled pit bull or Bull Terrier 'variation'.  This reference was made in a foot-note at the bottom of the page but was ignored by the court.

And that is all they have.  In a lower court decision of our lawsuit, the government had NOTHING in their hands to give to the court.